Apple, Google, others draft joint letter regarding President Trump’s executive order, ‘Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States’

“Alphabet, Apple, Facebook, Uber and Stripe, along with a consumer packaged goods company and others, are working together on a letter opposing U.S. President Trump’s travel ban, according to sources,” Kara Swisher reports for Recode.

“Tech companies are leading the effort but are working to involve other industries, the sources say,” Swisher reports. “The letter will be the first major push from big U.S. businesses to try to support immigration in the wake of a recent travel restriction order by Trump.”

Swisher reports, “President Trump signed an executive order last week barring Syrian refugees from entering the U.S. as well as temporarily suspending travel from seven countries…”

A portion of the letter:

Dear President Trump,

Since the country’s birth, America has been the land of opportunity — welcoming newcomers and giving them the chance to build families, careers and businesses in the United States. We are a nation made stronger by immigrants. As entrepreneurs and business leaders, our ability to grow our companies and create jobs depends on the contributions of immigrants from all backgrounds.

We share your goal of ensuring that our immigration system meets today’s security needs and keeps our country safe. We are concerned, however, that your recent executive order will affect many visa holders who work hard here in the United States and contribute to our country’s success. In a global economy, it is critical that we continue to attract the best and brightest from around the world. We welcome the changes your administration has made in recent days in how the Department of Homeland Security will implement the executive order, and we stand ready to help your administration identify other opportunities to ensure that our employees can travel with predictability and without undue delay…

The full draft of the letter via Recode here.

MacDailyNews Take:

Some people have said that I shouldn’t get involved politically because probably half our customers are Republicans… so I’m going to just stay away from all that political stuff.Apple CEO Steve Jobs, August 25, 2004

SEE ALSO:
Apple mulls legal options against President Trump’s executive order, ‘Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States’’ – February 1, 2017
President Donald Trump’s next immigration policy to target what Silicon Valley fears most – January 31, 2017
President Trump’s travel ban stirs little outcry beyond Silicon Valley – January 30, 2017
Tim Cook: Apple does not support President Trump’s executive order, ‘Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States’ – January 30, 2017
Tech industry frets over possible H-1B visa program changes under President Trump – January 28, 2017
President Trump eyes an H-1B visa aimed at ‘best and brightest’ – January 27, 2017
Silicon Valley uncertain after Donald Trump wins U.S. presidency – November 10, 2016
Silicon Valley donated 60 times more to Clinton than to Trump – November 7, 2016
99% of Silicon Valley’s political dollars are going to Hillary Clinton – October 25, 2016

161 Comments

    1. Sure, because Steve would have approved of REVOKING more than 100,000 legally-issued visas that took the holders up to several years work to acquire (statement on Feb 3 by Erez Reuveni, government lawyer defending the order, in response to a question by a Federal District Judge in Virginia). Assuming that the Trump Administration ever gets around to proposing new rules for screening visa applicants, all those people will get to start over at milepost 0. Still insisting that this isn’t a ban, or that was only an inconvenience for a few people? Still insisting that this is just “political stuff” that is unlikely to impact these companies’ operations?

      1. State Department now claiming that Justice Dept was uninformed. They claim it was only 60,000. Still quite a few when they are looking at extra years in a theater of war.

  1. Even Jobs would have gotten involved in this. Silicon Valley firms rely on talent from everywhere, and Trump’s policies potentially threaten that.

    In a world where companies have more power than ever, where the SCOTUS has ruled that corporations have the same speech rights as people, it is imperative that the world’s most powerful and influential companies get involved.

    Bravo to the tech firms for doing this.

    1. And what if some of these Nations that President Trump put on the Ban List have Terrorist coming to America? I care more about my Life than Apple. Pure damn Greed on these companies part. Its about the almighty $$$$$$……

      1. Please spare me the fake fear and melodrama.

        This EO does nothing to protect you and makes you less safe: breeds more terrorists, plays into their hands for recruiting.

        Trump is a godsend to his enemies.

        I can say “what if” all day long. A white Christian male shot up a church in Charleston…so should we ban all white Christian males? I can do a “what if” all day long about all sorts of thing.

        One of our sources of security is our economic and intellectual strength, which depends on a lot of immigrants. This endangers that.

        The problem is that the Trump way is making it easier for terrorists to recruit, and weakening America. That makes us all a lot less safe.

        If you fear for your life, than you should oppose Trump’s EO.

        1. It’s good to read, that there are at least some people on that website, who haven’t lost their mind (yet). I’m from Germany (where things are actually way less horrifying than Trump wants yout to think) and I agree with you 100%. In our modern world, it makes no sense to shut the doors to people today, who will enter our country tomorrow anyway. What we can actually influence today, is whether they will enter as friends or with bad intentions. Everything else are extremely short sighted policies. And considering the currently almost non-existent risk of getting killed by islamist terrorist attack (in the western world), it seems not only short sighted but totally unnecessary to piss off people in these muslim countries.
          On top of that, people in the affected countries are really in trouble (WE ARE NOT), some of them are more likely to die than to survive this year. And in our wealthy & safe western world, there are ***holes, who would rather let these people die, than give them shelter in their country of nearly 4 billion square miles. This is just incomprehensible to me.

            1. I like facts, and I assume that you do too. Here we go:

              1. Until recently, there were three times as many rapes per 100.000 citizens in the U.S. than in Germany. And there is no factual evidence (yet) that this has significantly changed since the refugee crisis.
              2. Refugee crisis in Germany started in 2015. Number of rape crimes for 2015 is pretty much the same than in 2014.
              3. Yes, there were more rape crimes commited by refugees in 2015 than in 2014 – but, that’s what happens when there are more than 1 million new people in your country. I don’t expect immigrants to be more abiding to the law than Germans.
              4. The overwhelming majority of rape crime happens within the family.
              5. Yes, in Muslim culture women have a very different role than in our culture. I don’t like that, personally, too. But to deduct, that different roles of man and woman automatically means they are all rapists is pretty naive (yes, right wing people can be naive, too)
              6. News do not equal facts. What I have presented here are real statistics. I cannot prove their origin, but I found are from the websites of the U.S. Departmnt of Justice and the German Police Department. This is the closest to actual “facts” that exists out there. On the other hand, there is nothing further away from “facts” than what you “hear” or what you “feel”.
              7. Angela Merkel is a Doctor of Physics. As such, she deals with facts, not feelings.

              Sorry.

            2. I am aware, that you won’t be convinced by facts. But I wanted to present them to you nonetheless. Facts don’t hurt anybody, and I assume that’s why some of these Trump people hate them. They think everything is about winning. And winning is all about hurting your opponent. Well, good luck with that going forward.

            3. Thanks for the links to the articles. Well, since “Trump is a nazi” (which I do not think) gives me 41 million results, I think we can rule Google results out as an indicator for truth.
              Concerning the Reuters article, it reads that rape crimes are at about 1,1% of all commited crimes by immigrants (it does not say “refugees only”). I admit that 69.000 sounds like a lot. In comparison to the about 6 million crimes committed per year in Germany, well, it sounds a lot less less spectacular.
              Concerning the other article (the 4 man squad to look after multiple offender immigrants) … sound like a good idea to me. If four people is all it needs to deal with these people, I’m more than willing to give my tax euros for it. 😉

        2. Trump is a godsend to his enemies? Trump is making it easier for terrorists to recruit? Right, You have the numbers to back it up. TEMPORARILY delaying SOME people from entering the country (because that’s what it is) is the same as banning white Christian males, because one shot up a church? That’s the problem with “what if’s,” they lead to false comparisons. We are not banning all Christian males, just Dylann Roof. And if we discover another Roof before he’s able to carry out a horrific attack, then we’ll ban him too. This travel ban is doing exactly that. This isn’t 1917. We don’t have the luxury of believing EVERY immigrant coming over from a rogue nation hopes to become an American citizen. You only need to look at Europe for that.

          1. You are profoundly naïve.

            The travel ban, instituted against countries, none of which had ever produced terrorist deaths in the US, makes absolutely no sense. About the only thing it will do is calm down low-information conservatives who got frightened by Trump’s campaign rhetoric about the dangers of illegal terrorists flooding the country (terrorist attacks are responsible for less than 0.3% of all murders in the US).

            You don’t need numbers to understand that when a government institutes arbitrary travel ban against your country, you get profoundly pissed off. And when that ban looks like a ban on your religion, you quickly become radical. When it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck, even if you call it a temporary travel ban.

            None of the terrorist attacks over past 25 years in the US would have been prevented had this same ban been in place before they happened. Explain to ma again, exactly HOW is the ban preventing anything???

      2. so why are you not worried that Saudi, Egypt and Afghanistan are not on Trumps list? If you are going to be a bigoted zealot then at least be a well informed one.

    2. Just so you know, there are more than 50 Muslim countries on earth, 7 are on the list (and Saudi Arabia, who probably should be #1, are mysteriously absent altogether). The tech firms doing this are a bunch of whiners that don’t want to pay people a fair wage, period. Spare me. What, you thought sweat shops were limited to the the production of physical goods? Don’t be naive, and also understand that technology and its representatives do not encompass the totality of life.

    1. The problem is that the terror attacks in the US have not been done by refugees.

      In fact not a single person from any of the 7 banned countries have committed a terrorist act in the US since the 1970’s.
      That’s the point: this Trump EO is just bluster, to try to prove himself tough, and accomplishes nothing good.

      It does however, disrupt a lot of lives of innocent people, many of whom make great contributions to the US. In fact, some prevented from coming in have helped out military in the war against terrorism. After something like this, will others want to help the US as much?

      Most of the recent terror attacks have been done by US citizens radicalized online and having mental problems.

      You can build the biggest walls, stop all immigration, but you can’t stop the spread of poisonous ideas that way…in fact you only inflame it. The way to combat this is to fight the idea of terrorism with better ideas…that of tolerance and liberalism.

      1. “In fact not a single person from any of the 7 banned countries have committed a terrorist act in the US since the 1970’s.” That is wrong.

        Actually, if you list “committed terrorist acts” and not restrict it to “killed a person in the U.S. through a terrorist act”, then there have been multiple (though less than 10 if I remember correctly) cases where individuals from those seven countries have committed terrorist acts within the U.S. There was even one or two cases in the last couple decades where individuals who killed U.S. citizens in a foreign country before coming to the U.S. The people from those countries just haven’t killed anyone within the U.S. within the period you state.

        While I believe the ban is inappropriate and skewed improperly and even overreacting — and therefore I believe it should never have been instituted as it was, we all need to keep using the real facts. There are enough reasons to oppose this ban without resorting to inaccurate statements.

        1. Well, what you are saying may be factually correct, but it doesn’t actually invalidate’s wade‘s statement that was in response to the consideration for families of people killed by terrorists disguised as “refugees”. Wade simply claimed, correctly, that no such situation existed, which you essentially confirmed, by stating that no refugees ever killed anyone (in terrorist acts) on the US soil. I can’t claim to know if any of the refugees who had settled in the US hadn’t committed your garden-variety murders (jealous husband, feuding brothers, etc).

      2. Regugee… Immgrant… they come from the same damn place idiots. It’s the same horse of a different color. What about the terrorists on 9/11? Should we just look the other way? What about San Bernadino, just look the other way? No, we need to get real and put our house in order. Sorry this is an inconveinience to silicon valley but I think the people at Apple are being selfish here in wanting to put everyone at risk, until we get a grip on the situation, to have a few hundred employees come here from over seas. We are talking about a couple of months to get the immigration problems worked out and secure. That’s it, a few months.

        1. The terrorists from 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Afghanistan, not on the list. The San Bernadino terrorists were from Pakistan, not on the list.

          That’s the point: this EO is just a meaningless show of bravado…does nothing to really help. Just inflames tension against the US and is a masterful terrorist recruiting tool.

          1. Does anyone know if immigrants/travelers from those 3 countries were already being scrutinized more heavily prior to the executive order? That may have affected the inclusion of those 3 countries as redundant for the current order due to processes already being in place to screen for ‘dangerous’ elements.

    2. Sadly, this executive order is NOT addressing that. Otherwise, it would include Russia (Boston bombers), Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Egypt (Twin Tower bombing).

      No terrorist disguised as a refugee from any of the seven listed countries has done anything to any US family on the US soil.

      However, this travel ban will, most definitely, radicalize plenty of American-born young Muslims who will see it as a clear message that America hates them and those like them. There is no need for ISIS and Al Qaeda to export their terrorist fighters into the US; America is more than capable of growing their own!

    3. Except that’s never happened. Your chances of being killed by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 BILLION per year, which mean that refugees effectively kill 2 people every year since there are 7.2 billion people on the planet. It’s an irrational fear of “the other” and nothing more. Tolerance and acceptance are the only way to extinguish the hateful ideology on both sides of these debates, along with actual facts. The more we live up to the charactiture painted of us by radical groups, the more radicals will be produced.

      1. Fear and ignorance go together, one breeding the other.

        And fear is what authoritarians and dictators try to use to control the people. Great leaders inspire; dictators use fear.

      2. Tell that to the families in San Bernadino and the families of 9/11. Tell that to the families of those murdered by illegals that thumb their noses at our citizens. You are absolutely cold hearted with your statement “1 in 3.64 BILLION…”.

        1. Trump’s EO would not have prevented 9/11 or San Bernadino.

          Also, consider that in 2015 a white Christian male committed an act of terrorism in a black church. Should that we mean we ban all white Christian males?

          Terrorism is an idea, an ideology. You kill one idea with another. This Trump EO is just a great recruiting tool for the terrorists. That’s makes us all less safe. That’s being cold hearted.

        2. The San dernadino people were from Pakistan and were not refugees. He was an American citizen and home grown. The 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and Pakistan. My point is that you have better chance of getting struck by lightning in the same place twice than being killed by a refugee. If you want to protect people so badly, then go after the white nationalist mentally ill morons like Dylan roof who murdered 9 black people because of their skin color. That’s terrorism too, domestic terrorism. So by your logic should be ban all white people from Mississippi? (He is from South Carolina) do you see the logical fallacy of your argument?

        3. By the way (and not that it is in any way relevant to this discussion, but still), you may want to change your handle; as it is, it is grammatically incorrect (that is even if we insert the proper spaces where they belong). The grammatically correct sentence would be:

          Apple Used to Think Different (past tense; not present)

          There were numerous debates about the whole grammar of the marketing slogan “Think Different” itself (by itself, it appears incorrect, but the goal was to imply that “Different” isn’t used as an adverb, but an adjective as in Think: pink, or Think: super-sized. It would have been more grammatically correct with a colon, Think: Different, but that was dropped as it was visually unappealing.)

      1. Where do you get your fake news? Since you don’t know what you’re talking about, you should STFU!
        2009
        June 1, Little Rock, Arkansas: Abdulhakim Muhammed, a Muslim convert from Memphis, Tennessee, is charged with shooting two soldiers outside a military recruiting center. One is killed and the other is wounded. In a January 2010 letter to the judge hearing his case, Muhammed asked to change his plea from not guilty to guilty, claimed ties to al-Qaeda, and called the shooting a jihadi attack “to fight those who wage war on Islam and Muslims.”

        Dec. 25: A Nigerian man on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit attempted to ignite an explosive device hidden in his underwear. The explosive device that failed to detonate was a mixture of powder and liquid that did not alert security personnel in the airport. The alleged bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, told officials later that he was directed by the terrorist group Al Qaeda. The suspect was already on the government’s watch list when he attempted the bombing; his father, a respected Nigerian banker, had told the U.S. government that he was worried about his son’s increased extremism.

        2010
        May 1, New York City: a car bomb is discovered in Times Square, New York City after smoke is seen coming from a vehicle. The bomb was ignited, but failed to detonate and was disarmed before it could cause any harm. Times Square was evacuated as a safety precaution. Faisal Shahzad pleads guilty to placing the bomb as well as 10 terrorism and weapons charges.

        2015
        Dec. 2, San Bernadino, Calif.: Fourteen people are killed and more than 20 wounded when two people open fire at a holiday party at the Inland Regional Center, a service facility for people with disabilities and special needs in San Bernardino, California. The suspects, husband and wife Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, are killed in a shootout with police after the rampage. Officials say they believe the attack is terrorism related. It is the worst mass shooting in the United States since 26 people were killed in Dec. 2012, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. (Dec. 8): The F.B.I. announces that Farook and Malik had been “radicalized.” The FBI also concludes that while the couple was not working with ISIS directly, their actions were inspired by the Islamic State.

        1. I think he meant it say almost all. Which is true, aside from those incidents every other one including sandy hook where a dozen children were murdered, Charleston, bâton rouge, the bombing of many abortion clinics, the murder of George tiller, fort hood, etc… were all committed by white nationalists or far right Christians “in name only” as I refer to them. As far all of those attacks they were committed by home grown people, and not a single refugee nor anyone from those countries on the list.

      1. You are not helping your argument with that video! It talks about illegal immigrants.

        The article above is about the executive order banning LEGAL travel into the US from seven nations. You know, people who have VALID visas (and those aren’t that easy to obtain; they’ve already been vetted by the consulate that issued the visas).

        Moooo…..

        1. “Vetted” the same way they “vetted” Tashfeen Malik.

          There’s a new sheriff in town. One who actually works. Get used to it. Or don’t. We don’t give any more shits than Oblahblah did to the opposition during his 8 years of misguided Dem/Lib/Prog stupidity and malaise (which we now have to clean up at home and around the world, as usual).

          1. You do realise that Tashfeen Malik would be able to waltz into the US today, regardless of your presiden’s order? Being from Pakistan, and having lived in Saudi Arabia (two countries NOT on the list), the order would have zero effects on her, and San Bernardino would easily happen without any interference form the US government.

            The ineptitude of the new American president is rapidly becoming clear to an increasing number of true conservatives. The progressives have known it since he decided to run for office.

            1. Then why have none of those countries attacked us, and all of the attacks since 9/11 been home grown? Calling the former president names doesn’t help your case either.

          2. If I remember correctly she came to the U.S. from Saudi Arabia and thus would not be covered by the current Executive Order. Yes, she was born in Pakistan and even studied in Pakistan — another country not one of the seven banned.

            So… How is her case relevant to the discussion?

            1. Then why have none of those countries attacked us, and all of the attacks since 9/11 been home grown? Calling the former president names doesn’t help your case either.

            2. You do know the vetting process for refugees getting into the US is the strictest in the world right? And that our preference is for women and children right? And that refugees don’t pick where they go right? Do you know how the immigration system works?

            3. From today’s (London) Mirror:

              The process of applying for refugee status in the US is arduous and can take up to 18 months to complete.
              • First they must register, be interviewed and granted refugee status by the United Nations.
              • Only the most vulnerable are granted refugee status and referred – less than 1 per cent of refugees world wide.
              • Once referred to the US, they face interviews with the State Department.
              • They undergo at least two background checks – but most refugees aged between 14 and 65 face three, including a higher level background check.
              • Their fingerprints are screened against FBI and Homeland security databases to ensure they are not on watch lists.
              • These are cross checked against fingerprints taken by the Defence Department from roadside bombs in Iraq.
              • Cases are then reviewed by the US immigration HQ – and further extensive, in-person interviews are conducted by the department of Homeland Security.
              • They are screened for contagious diseases , go to cultural orientation classes and matched with a resettlement agency before facing another multi-agency security check. This is to catch any changes that might have taken place in the lengthy period between the first checks and leaving for the US.
              • When they arrive they face a final security check at an American airport.

              So far the Trump administration has not outlined exactly how their ‘extreme vetting’ will be more extreme than the process already in place.

            4. Indeed it is. And the point of it (if you hadn’t realised) is that extreme vetting is already taking place.

              And, to quote the last sentence again (for the slow ones in the back row):

              So far, the Trump administration has not outlined exactly how their ‘extreme vetting’ will be more extreme than the process already in place.

        2. A foreigner is a foreigner. Call em refugee, immigrant, illegal or whatever. They don’t have a right to just come in here without being checked out. Especially in this day and age where a lot of these puke’s hate the U.S.
          If they check out ok, then great. But to be so naive as to think all these so-called refugees are just that is asking for trouble. Better safe than sorry. They complain about being inconvenienced at the airports. I’m always inconvenienced when I go there. Arrive 3 hours before your flight so you can sit around waiting. Get felt up by strangers who are in a sense, checking you out to make sure you do no harm to others. Imagine that? Should I protest that?
          If Timmy Boy wants to lead by example, than anyone regardless, should be able to just waltz right in to the newly completed Spaceship Campus, look around at all the neat things, eat at the employee cafeteria, sleep on the floors, or whatever.
          Apple welcomes everyone!!!
          Small print: “But only if you check out and have proper authorization.”

          1. Do you have any clue what you’re talking about? Exactly how do you think people travel to the US? Just pick up your passport and buy an airplane ticket? Yes, from the EU and a handful of other countries (Japan, Australia, New Zealand and similar). For all others, you schedule an appointment with the US embassy, pay your $50 fee and apply for a visa. You give your fingerprints, they interview you, and then you go home and wait for the background check.

            Tashfeen Malik (one of the San Bernardino terrorists) underwent three extensive national security and criminal background screenings, using Homeland Security and State Department databases. She also underwent two in-person interviews, the first with a consular officer in Pakistan and the second with an immigration officer in the U.S.

            This is a regular process before ANYONE is allowed to enter the US. You don’t just waltz into the US; they screen you extensively before giving you visas.

            The Trump travel ban is not blocking illegal immigrants (they arrived illegally); it is preventing those who underwent all that screening and visa application process, and ultimately received that coveted US visa, to enter the US. Illegals will continue to stream across the border exactly as they used to before. Once the border wall is up, there will be a strong uptick in sales of ladders on the Mexican side of the border, and nothing will meaningfully change. Meanwhile the travel ban is stupid and counter-productive.

          2. When I met my wife in 1990, she was a British subject in the United States on a student visa. After we married, we went through the process for legal permanent residency. This was before 9/11, but even then it was a very prolonged process that required volumes of paperwork and repeated face-to-face interviews with both of us. We later went through the same prolonged process before she could become a citizen. Again, this was for a person from a close U.S. ally married to an American prosecutor.

            As I describe elsewhere on this thread, the screening for a refugee or other immigrant under the Obama Administration was far more rigorous, particularly if the person comes from one of the countries listed for extra scrutiny. It is hard to imagine any form of “extreme vetting” that the Trump Administration could add that would be any more effective.

            What I suspect we will be dealing with in practice is something like the “literacy tests” applied to African-Americans before the Voting Rights Act: a process that is designed to exclude all of the applicants without expressly claiming to do so. The Silicon Valley firms are correctly describing that as a measure banning them from moving otherwise qualified employees back and forth across the U.S. border. That is not “messing in politics,” but addressing a legitimate business concern.

    1. Hahahaha…”botnivvik” still trying to hide behind Obama…

      First, Obama is no longer president…what is relevant is Trump and his actions. And I thought Trump supporters thought everything Obama stood for was bad?

      Second, what Obama was advocating is not what Trump did. Trump did not just say he was going to tighten immigration rules, but he stopped even green card holders…who had already been extremely vetted, from re-entering. These people have been productive citizens for years in many cases.

      Third, illegal immigration went down under Obama.

      Fourth, we have stories of all sorts of innocent wonderful people being hurt by Trump: doctors, scientists, children, the elderly, the sick, etc. We don’t yet have one story of a terrorist stopped.

  2. Pretty good letter, actually. While I agree with the EO, I also agree with the letter. We’re almost all descended from immigrants in this county. And it admits to the goals and changes already invoked. So long as this all remains the case, there isn’t even much need for the letter, but it puts Trump on notice, and in a pretty good, non-confrontational way. Well done, tech guys. I actually think you got this one right.

  3. I am struggling to understand something here. The people who have drafted this executive order are all intelligent and know what they are doing. Surely, they are clearly aware that this executive order will do absolutely NOTHING with respect to what it is purported to do (prevent a terrorist attack on the US soil). Instead of Syria, Sudan or Libya, they may have well put Norway, Iceland and Trinidad; the likelihood of catching a terrorist would have been the same.

    Preventing future terrorist attacks is something the US has to try and do effectively, not because terrorist attacks are a big problem in the US (they represent less than 1% of all murders committed in the US), but because the nation is increasingly more and more afraid of them, and feels the need for the problem to be addressed.

    Unfortunately, this travel ban is counter-productive; while non-thinking Americans will likely be placated by it and perhaps feel safer now that travelers from a few Muslim countries will be prevented from coming to the US, to everyone with a functioning brain it is clear that the travel ban will speed up radicalization of young American-born Muslims. The end result will be a greater likelihood of domestic radical Islamic terrorism.

    So, is it possible that the only reason for this is political pandering? Rather than make country safer, make people (not everyone, just some) feel safer, even if the effect is in fact the opposite??

    1. That actually makes a lot of sense, and something I have been wondering. It will do nothing to address the actual problem, while inflaming relationships around the world and having the effect of making him look strong at home to his supporters, while the world leaders talk to him and he can seem normal. The only issue is that he’s talking to our allies like a vindictive teenager, how much of a complete asshole do you have to be to piss off the Australians? They’re the most laid back people on earth next to New Zealanders, I mean seriously….he’s capable of pissing off auzzies? Jesus.

      1. All you have to do to be an asshole is stand up for something. We have a President who is doing what he said he’d do AND now he’s all of a sudden an asshole. Shocker! At least he is doing exactly what the hell he said he would do. You don’t like it, tell your hommies in the heartland to vote him out. NEWSFLASH to all you California and NY liberals, You don’t get to control the country.

        1. Well, that may be true to a certain extent, but that certainly does NOT prevent people from expressing their displeasure with that.

          I have no doubt that there is a large number of Trump voters who “didn’t take him literally, but took him seriously”. Actually this was a Fox News favourite definition for the two voting groups: conservatives took Trump seriously, but not literally; progressives took him literally, but not seriously.

          Well, apparently, the conservatives may have miscalculated, because Trump is now doing LITERALLY what he said he was doing (by instituting what amounts to a Muslim ban, for all intents and purposes).

          The ban is going to have a disastrous effect in the fight against home-grown terrorism. It may well dissuade some would-be terrorist from these seven countries from trying to travel to America, but that won’t really matter; plenty of young American-born Muslims will be radicalized by this travel ban.

          People will vote in four years for the next president, but that vote may be way too late to even relate to this particular travel ban, so the only way to know what people think about it is for them to say so.

      2. *THIS* has been my problem with Trump from day 1. Not Day 1 of his presidency, but day 1 of when I heard he was running. He’s a blow-hard. He’s a brash jerk. Read through my other posts for the day, and you’ll wonder where I stand – I stand for the still fairly common middle ground that a lot of people also stand for if they can put their politics and emotions aside for a minute and take an honest look at it all. I generally support what Trump has done here, but the Trump presidency scares the pants off of me. (Don’t get excited, ladies – I’m 48, overweight, and balding. Oh, and married! 🙂 ) I also equally support the letter these tech guys are putting together. Looks like a great way to support his move at this stage, while putting him on notice that he had better not extend it or make it anything more than allowing for a few corrections in the process.

    2. Yes, they knew what they were doing. They drafted it in a way that anytime Congress decides to change the list of those countries that are believed to be the most dangerous terrorist havens, this EO shifts right along with that list. Don’t like the list? Blame Congress, not POTUS.

      And you’re right that the ban, long term, would be very counterproductive. But even the tech guys’ letter admits that some changes to the processes in place will be beneficial, and this ban is supposed to be temproary and for exactly that purpose. So long as that remains the case, I still call it overall a good thing. Only if it does remain short term and for the purpose of correcting some things, though.

      Finally, yes, posturing to make the sheeple feel more secure has too often been the approach for us all. Hopefully it won’t actually have that opposite effect.

  4. Millennials who are confused to see a real change agent in the U.S. Presidency and the unhinged reaction to it by Dem/Lib/Progs: This has all happened before, and pretty recently, too!

    Some of us lived it, but you can gain insight on the events of today simply by reading media accounts of the campaign, election, and presidency of Ronald Reagan.

    1. Please…Reagan would have loathed Trump. Reagan for all his flaws had deep respect for our democracy and democratic traditions. Trump does not.

      Reagan had experience in govt before the presidency, he had thought deeply about several major issues like the Cold War, he had a calm temperament. He raised taxes when saw it necessary and actually gave a form of amnesty to illegal immigrants. Reagan would have been mocked and ridiculed by Trump.

      I lived through the presidency of Reagan, and Trump is no Reagan.

  5. A 90 day pause on immigration from those countries that Obama put on the list, is not a “muslim ban”.
    How stupid are you people?
    Christens, Jews, Hindus, Atheists, etc are not allowed from those countries either. All people are being treated the same in those countries. After the 90 days, BETTER security checks will be in place so as to keep terrorists and suspected terrorist out of the US.

    1. No the order priorititizes minority religions from those nations. Hence the unconstitutionality of it. We do not have religious tests in this country, the church is separate from the government and by stating that in the order it is directly opposite o]to the first amendment. Seomthing that would have been caught by the doj, White House council, ICE, the state department, or the dod if the goddamned order would have even run by them first. Which is how you draft this stuff. International relations are not the same thing as running a family business, and the executive branch is not all powerful, the executive branch is the management arm and has to coordinate. Have you ever taken a civics class?

      1. I watched the daily press briefing with Sean Spicer. He explained in detail how this order went thru the review process and what departments signed off on it.
        Where are you getting your info?

        1. Which briefing are you referring to? Saturday, his Sunday talk show stint, Monday. Tuesday, or yesterday? If you follow the progression of his briefings, he didn’t say until yesterday what agcinece were briefed, because by that point they actually had been… you have to be very careful with Spicer, he will say smelting one day then walk it back the next, then deny he ever said it, then change the subject and conflate a Saudi ship getting fired on by Yemen with Iran attacking a us navy ship from 5 years ago. Pay very close attention to the misdirected he uses, he’s not as good at it as kellyanne, but he’s just as blatant.

    2. Do you seriously believe the Americans clearly understand those details?

      For all intents and purposes, this is a Muslim Ban. Most Americans are calling it that, and most conservative Americans are celebrating it. And most don’t believe for a second that it will expire in 90 days.

      What’s really bad is, most American-born Muslim see it clearly as a Muslim ban. You can try to explain as much as you can, but the way it was written, signed, publicised and implemented screams “Muslim ban”. Nobody believes for one second that a Syrian national named Christopher would be turned back from the US border under this ban.

      1. You’re right, except that it does indeed prioritize minority religions. If muslims, Jews, Presbyterians, and Catholics including the pope are agreeing that it’s a Muslim ban? I’m pretty sure it’s a Muslim ban.

      2. Most sheeple are parroting what they hear on CNN or read in the NY Times, both associated with FAKE NEWS. So all the other lower news networks or papers can run the same story “Muslim Ban” and point to the NY Times as their source to stay out of trouble.
        So if you stand in a forest and yell “Muslim Ban” all day, is it true? Sounds like you believe that.

        Also, if it’s a Muslim ban, how is it that the other 25 or more Muslim countries can enter just fine? Seriously, if its a Muslim Ban, then no muslims should be getting in. But that’s not the case. It’s a 90 day pause for ALL immigrants of those 7 countries.

        1. Let me explain something. Fake News means when something is NOT TRUE.

          Neither CNN, nor NY Times has called this a Muslim Ban. Both of them, as well as literally all other legitimate news outlets, call it by its name: Executive Order on Immigration. However, when you go and read opinion pieces, many argue the same thing that is also being argued here: that it is effectively a Muslim Ban. And the argument is rather straightforward. News articles and opinion pieces are two very different things, and that’s why opinion pieces are very clearly marked: “Opinion”, or “Op-Ed”. And at the end of every opinion piece, there is often a disclaimer: “The opinion presented in this article doesn’t necessarily represent the opinion of the editorial board of this newspaper”. Large percentage of low-information voters confuse opinions with news.

          During his campaign, Trump kept promising a Muslim Ban. This was one of the promises that drove the votes. All those votes are publicly rejoicing now, for following through on that promise.

          Vast majority of Americans don’t quite clearly understand that this travel ban does NOT specify religious affiliation, nor does it require a religious test. It specifically targets seven countries. What they all hear is simple: a Muslim Ban, which is “temporary” (wink, wink…). Practically nobody really believes that the ban will automatically be lifted after 90 days.

          You are correct, only seven out of over 30 Muslim countries are banned, and there is no religious test. However, it isn’t just liberals who are standing in the forest and yelling “Muslim Ban”; it is most Americans, because that’s exactly what the ban looks like to them.

          1. Well then, “it looks” and “appears” will get you an F on an exam paper since neither of them are the correct answer.
            I deal with facts, not what people “believe”.

            1. What exam paper? What Answer? What was the question? And what does it matter!?

              The facts bear very little importance to a 17-year old Muslim man in Dearborn, MI. When he sees Trump announcing a “temporary” travel ban on nationals of seven Arab lands, all he hears is permanent Muslim Ban. You are welcome to try and explain to him (and hundreds like him) that this is a TEMPORARY travel ban on anyone (not just Muslims). Good luck explaining that. By the time you think you succeeded, he’ll be on his way to Washington, D.C. with an explosive vest under his coat…

    1. No, it wasn’t. The doj didn’t get the order until later that night while it was being signed. The doj lawyers defending it in court that evening asked for more time because they had no information, that is why the ny circuit judge stayed the order. She asked repeatedly during the hearing what the harm to government was, and they could not defend it. Two days later, after reading the entire text the acting AG said she wasn’t convinced it was lawful, and at the end of her statement said “unless and until I become convinced it is lawful” that she wouldn’t enforce it. And instead of doing what normal president would do, and meet with her to go through it and convince her? He fired her for disagreeing and “betraying” him…. that’s fascist language. The last president who did something close to this was when Nixon fired two AG’s who wouldn’t dismiss the special prosecutor investigating watergate, then he got to Robert bork who did (which is why he didn’t get confirmed for the scotus in 1987). Get the timeline straight. And when dealing with foreign policy, even if the doj says it’s ok? YOU RUN IT BY THE GODDAMNED STATE DEPARTMENT!

        1. No, it wasn’t. If it was, the AG and the justice department lawyers would have known how to defend it in court, and she wouldn’t have said what she did. And it even referenced the wrong section of us code…. the doj would have caught that….White House council would have caught that… You are aware that normal executive orders are vetted for weeks before being signed yes?

          1. you need a civics class…along with a remedial English lit class…

            “A Justice Department spokesman told The Huffington Post on Monday that that Office of Legal Counsel has traditionally answered the “narrow question” of whether executive orders are lawful on their face and properly drafted. The spokesman said that continues to be the case in the first 10 days of the Trump administration.”

            don’t you get tired of being wrong?

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/senators-doj-trump-executive-orders_us_588f8bfae4b0522c7d3c1006

            1. But here’s the key part of the statement: “OLC’s legal review has been conducted without the involvement of Department of Justice leadership, and OLC’s legal review does not address the broader policy issues inherent in any executive order.”

              In other words, the Office of Legal Counsel approved the language and basic legality of the executive orders, but did not look at the broader potential impact and potential complications. And DOJ leadership, which in this case means acting Attorney General Sally Yates and others, were not involved in the process at all.

              Do you even read the articles you post? This directly contradicts your point. And it’s in the third paragraph. A two minute phone call to a junior staffer who reviews form and narrow legality, which means “does this conform to standards for a legal document”, or in simpler language “this looks right” is not the same thing as running it by the justice department! You have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about as usual…

            2. Have ever read article 2? Do you know how the executive branch is supposed to function? The president appoints the heads of the agencies, but does not tell them what to do or who to talk to or how to do their jobs. That’s why there’s a cabinet. It was based on the ministry system employed by the constitutional monarchy of the British. You honestly have no idea how these things work, and I am done trying to make you read and learn. You believe whatever the hell you want, you’re still massively misinformed and wrong, but since you want to live in that ignorance bubble and be happy? Fine.

            3. I told you below that you’re not getting one, because I haven’t posted those photos yet. Once I do you’ll have to admit you’re wrong… and I know you’re incapable of that, which is why you delayed telling me how to do that for so long, thankfully pedrag enlightened me. Where’s my apology for you calling me idiot constantly or being so thick headed you refuse to accept when you’ve misread an article you’ve used to prove your own point that actually proves the opposite? And that you have f’ing idea how the government works?

            4. Furthermore, do you know the markup process? The review process of agencies? The function of the department of state? Article 1, and that congress is the power not the executive? And that the judicial branch is the arbiter? Did you take civics? Have you lived in another country and understand how their government works? Are you incapable of learning information that is not in your pre conceived notions?

    2. Did you ever tell me how to post a picture of my book? I didn’t check the other post and I asked you above. Is it something I can do from the app or do I have to use the website?

      Just so we can be clear to everyone, he and I got into a discussion yesterday about 1984 in which he insisted I was incorrect about the word double speak being in the text, I then found my 1950 edition and proved it but need to post a picture of the pages. And in the 10 years I’ve been on this forum I have no idea how to do so, if someone could enlighten me as to how to post a photo it would be greatly appreciated.

            1. That is the bottom-of-the-barrel low that only you are capable of reaching, botvinnik. In all of the eight years of Obama presidency, your conservative zealots have pissed and threw stones of Obama since day one, but they all were classy enough not to touch his wife. But not you; you had consistently proved to everyone how classless you are.

              I don’t go around insulting people (that’s your expertise), but nobody here ever dared say anything about Laura Bush during the eight years of the disastrous Bush presidency, and I’m sure nobody will ever say anything offensive about your current First Lady. You seem to be the only one who is classless enough to go that low.

            2. botvinnik

              I think the only person who has suggested that the photo might be of the First Lady is you.

              If it were, who cares? She has repeatedly stated that she does not regret having posed for nude photographs when she was a model. It was just a part of the business. If she isn’t embarrassed about it, why are you? Do you think referring to it constitutes some sort of insult?

              Besides, it pretty well insulates her from people who might spread stories about her being a transexual former football player. Not having nude photos on the internet has left Ms. Obama open to such stories from the same people who believe Ms. Clinton is keeping child slaves in the tunnels under Comet Pizza.

            3. Spoken like someone who has not argument, knows they’re wrong, and doesn’t even know how much actual money mr soros even has or that three of mr trumps cabinet worked for him

            4. You won’t, because once I get my server to host the photos of my 1950 edition that I quoted from…. you’ll be able to see, just like everyone else, how very incorrect you are.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.